tylerwind Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 With the help of many of you a few months back, I picked out the Rebel XT camera and have been very happy with it (thanks!). The only problem right now is memory--I have an old 256MB CF card that I've been using but it only gives me 60-70 pictures in Large format. I like to use at least large JPEG, if not RAW when I shoot and am looking for a substantial upgrade in memory. I've been looking at a bunch of CF cards, mini drives, etc. and wanted some help from ya'll. I know they are different "speeds" but I don't really understand what "speed" refers to. Also, I don't fully understand mini drives or why some people seem to say they don't like them. Can someone please give me some guidance? Will any of the major brands work equally well? Are there brands I should stay away from? I just want to get a card that will allow a 200-300 pictures before I have to unload it. As always, thanks for all the help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kahn Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 A 1GB card should do it with room to spare. (Geez, I rmember when 256MB was state of the art!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jani_k Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Tyler, 256mb is too little for your needs. So I suggest you get 1GB card if you shoot only jpeg and 2GB if you plan to shoot RAW. Sometimes I shoot RAW+jpeg and found out that 1GB is little bit too small if shooting sports for example. I have been happy with Sandisk Ultra II memory cards they are fast enough for me (and I think for lots of users). There is also Sandisk Extreme that is little bit faster than Ultra II but I haven't used those. Card speeds slow down when size gets bigger but that is only problem if you shoot long bursts of images. Some people like to use even bigger 4GB/8GB cards but I like to split my images to different cards if there is card failure. I do not currently need to use mini drives or other portable harddrives but if you shoot a lot and are on the road long time then something like Epson's portable HD would be useful. Hope this helps, Jani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_dunn2 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 <p>I normally shoot RAW plus small/normal JPEG (which I use as a thumbnail for quickly sorting out the shots that are garbage) on my 20D, which produces files of similar size to your XT. I figure on 100 images per gig; assuming I don't do too much high-ISO shooting (which I usually don't), that's a conservative estimate.</p> <p>Any of the major brands will work equally well. Off-brands probably will, too, though personally I find the price difference between never-heard-of-it brands and major brands isn't really that much so I stick with names that have a track record. There have been plenty of other discussions of speed before, including <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BXdK" target="_blank">this one I started just before I bought my 20D</a>.</p> <p>Another thing to keep in mind, which you'll also see in some of the older threads, is whether or not you want to keep all your eggs in one basket. That is, if you buy (say) a 4 GB card so you can shoot hundreds of images without having to change cards, and something goes wrong with the card, you could potentially lose all your images. Buy four 1 GB cards and you'll be changing cards more often, but if one dies or gets dropped down a sewer or off a cliff, you've only lost a quarter of your pictures.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phule Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 With the XT, my standard is 2GB Ultra II or Extreme III cards from Sandisk. I shoot RAW+JPG. For just JPG, a 1GB card would be sufficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athinkle Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 I use a Lexar 2gig 80x card with my 20D and it suits my needs perfectly. I shoot RAW only and get plenty of shots, and even at that resolution the buffer empties so fast that it's hardly noticeable. I used to use a microdrive and had no problems at all. At this time, however, CF memory is so cheap that it's probably best to avoid microdrives as their one main advantage at one point was their low price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scil_concepts Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 I just picked up my second black Rebel XT! Picked it up as a spare body just in case. Ony my first XT, i'm shooting RAW+JPEG in Large format. If i'm shooting Large JPEG only, my 1GB card holds around 270 pictures, and my 4GB Card maxes out the screen at 999, and I take around 150 then the 999 goes down, so I think i'm around 1175 shots on the 4GB. However, if I'm shooting RAW+JPEG Large format on the 4GB, I only get around 280-290 shots. It's a trade-off, but once you shoot JPEG only, a 1GB card should be very cheap and the ideal situation for you. I picked up 4 1GB cards, and swapping them out was such a hassle so I bought the addt'l 4GB card, so the 1GB's are "backups". From personaly experience, I would only buy SanDisk. All my cards are the basic SanDisk red/blue CompactFlash, not the fancy gold Ultra or Silver ExtremeIII. I have nothing but positives for SanDisk Quality! Hopefully this is helpful to you! Michael @ Scil Concepts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mars c Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Just buy two 1 gig now and add another if the price is much cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_barbu1 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 FWIW, Sandisk <a href="http://www.sandisk.com/Corporate/PressRoom/PressReleases/PressRelease.aspx?ID=3488">just announced</a> the Extreme IV line of cards. In conjunction with their FireWire Extreme reader, you can get about 40 MB/s throughput when download the images from the card to your computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun westlake Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Have both the the regular Blue/Red Sandisk and the Extreme III. While the write speed in the camera of the III is noticeably faster, rarely does it slow me down. Where I do notice the difference is transferring the cards to my pc using the card reader or to my digital wallet. Check out Rob Galbraith's performance database of cards http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scil_concepts Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 wow, the new sandisk extreme IV starts at 2GB, you can't even buy a 1GB! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian_lacour Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 I've been using Transcend memory card for awhile now on my 20D. I forgot the link but between all the popular cards out there & comparing with top brands like Sandisk, Transcend scored really high in benchmark along with quality & price. It's much cheaper & you can pick up 2GB for less then $50 on Newegg :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_barbu1 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 <p><i>wow, the new sandisk extreme IV starts at 2GB, you can't even buy a 1GB!</i></p>To be honest, I'm surprised to find so many people that still use 1 GB cards (and sometimes less). I've been using an 8 GB card for about a year now, and sometimes need to pair it with my old 4 GB card to make sure I don't run out of storage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 The primary effect that higher speed has is increasing the profits of the card vendors. Unless you're working as a sports photographer or pj, it's unlikely you are going to need the speed. The buffer on the XT holds about five RAW or nine JPEG images, which means that it is going to be a while before you need the speed. Higher speed cards do unload faster to the computer, but you can do this in the background. I usually take the first couple images off the card, start in Photoshop, then run the rest in while I'm working. It really doesn't make much difference if you know how to use your computer. I wouldn't buy anything less than 1 gig at this point, especially since 1 gig standard speed cards can be found under $20 these days. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_barbu1 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 <p><i>Higher speed cards do unload faster to the computer, but you can do this in the background. I usually take the first couple images off the card, start in Photoshop, then run the rest in while I'm working. It really doesn't make much difference if you know how to use your computer.</i></p>True, but that's not terribly helpful if you're waiting for the images to download so you can shoot some more. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 At $20/card, why would you have only one? And most people aren't shooting and downloading, they go out, shoot, come back and download. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_barbu1 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 <p><i>At $20/card, why would you have only one? And most people aren't shooting and downloading, they go out, shoot, come back and download.</i></p>I didn't mean to suggest someone would have only one, but that there may be a need to download the images and then continue to shoot. Reaching maximum capacity is not the only scenario where one would want to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericreagan Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 http://photofloor.blogspot.com/2006/07/memory-cards-and-cameras.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangoldman Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 for a recent trip i went on i bought a 2gig card. i had no issues with it all and can take 200raw pictures. this was used in conjunction with a 1gig card i had been using anyway. between these 2, i'd be hard pressed to fill both of them up. the 2gig was 160$ from best buy, but they are cheaper on bhphotovideo.com (needed to get it at the last second). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 The beauty thing about digital storage is that the price keeps going down. Buy as much storage as you need, but no more. Capacity (and speed and reliability) will continue to go up, and prices will continue to drop. At the moment, the sweet spot in CF storage is 2-4GB ... about the same price per megabyte in both capacities. So I wouldn't recommend buying anything smaller than 2GB, unless you're really on a budget, and nothing smaller than 1GB even then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nokiah Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 I've had a 20d for several months now, and have been using a 1gb sandisk Ultra 2, and 256mb lexar just as a tiny backup. The 1gb has served me well, allowing me to get about 270 pics in the highest quality jpeg, which generally was decent, though i ussually whished i had more. when i started shooting raw every once in a while, i needed more, so i got another 1gb card, and i still need more memory if i want to go out and only shoot raw.... i'm thinking of getting a pair of 2gb ultra 2 cards (available at costco for 90 bucks a piece, and returnable if they break.... whenever) 6gb of relatively high speed memory would get me about 1620 high quality jpegs (way more than enough) and around 480 raws.... still not a huge amount but not bad. (for me its around 80 raws a gig give or take a few) So back to answering your quistion, if you want to take 300 pics in jpeg format one more gig and your 256mb should do fine. If you want to take 300 raws, you're gonna need around 4gb more of memory good luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delwyn_ching Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 1 GB should be the minimum, 2GB is nice, 4 GB is better. Bigger is convenient but there's a thing about putting too many eggs in 1 basket should the CF card fails and you loose everything. get several 1, 2 or 4 GB CF cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_barbu1 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 FWIW, I have yet to experience a Sandisk Ultra II CF card failing, and I've had the 2, 4, and 8 GB models over the past three years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_barbu1 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 <a href="http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/qna/8928.html">Some information on Compact Flash card reliability</a> [novell.com] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun westlake Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Since I have both the Sandisk standard Red/Blue and an Extreme III, I did a quick test last night. Shooting in Superfine large JPGs on an XT, the cameral captured a burst of 13 Jpgs before slowing down using the Standard card. Using the Extreme III, I was able to get a burst of 21 before the camera slowed done. Transferring a full 2 gig card using a card reader to my pc took 5:52 using the standard Sandisk while only 1:32 using the Extreme III. Your mileage may vary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now